Ma. Elena Medina-Mora2, Guilherme Borges3, Carmen Lara Muñoz4, Corina Benjet5, Jerónimo Blanco Jaimes6, Clara Fleiz Bautista5, Jorge Villatoro Velázquez5, Estela Rojas Guiot5, Joaquín Zambrano Ruíz5, Leticia Casanova Rodas5, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola7
In2001, the World Health Organization dedicated it’s Annual Health Report to Mental Health in an effort to put this problems at the core of the global health and development agendas. Along with this initiative, governments were invited to collaborate in the so called WHO 2000 initiative on Mental Health gathering information on the nature and extent of the problem, using the cross culturally validatedDiagnostic Interview Schedule, WHOCIDI. This study forms part of this initiative. The paper describes the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, regional variations, socio demographic correlates and service utilization in the Mexican urban population between 18 and 65 years of age from the National Survey on Psychiatric Epidemiology (ENEP for its initials in spanish). It is the first time that suchnational data are gathered and published for Mexico. The sample design was probabilistic, stratified and multistage, one individual per household was selected. Information was gathered in two phases (information from the composition of the household and from the individual selected among the eligible members) (18-65 years of age), the target population was non institutionalized inhabitants ofhouseholds in urban localities of more than 2,500 inhabitants, which represents 72% of the national population. The sample design is a strict probability selection scheme: 200 primary selection units (PSU) selected with probability proportional to a measure of size (PPS); census tract areas (AGEB) serving as PSU; 5 city blocks or listing areas selected with PPS within each selected PSU; 1 compactsegment in the neighborhood of 9 housing units (hu’s) selected within each selected listing area; all households within selected hu´s included
in survey and 1 eligible respondent selected within each selected household. The field work was conducted in two stages. During the first phase (September- December 2001) 10,377 households were visited up to 5 times to obtain information either on thehousehold or for the selected interviewer. In order to reduce the non response rate, a second phase was implemented; a systematic probabilistic sub sample of 21 PSUs for Mexico City Metropolitan Area and 40 PSUs in the rest of the country was re-visited. The strategy was to complete up to 10 callbacks (including those already completed in the first round) in each non-response household and in eachnon-response individual interview. During this re-visit, efforts were concentrated on obtaining data on households with missing informants or refusals, and completing interviews on individuals not located previously or individuals that refused the individual interview in the first phase. No financial incentive was given during any phase of the survey. The fieldwork ended in May 2002 and a total of5,826 completed interviews were achieved. The response rate, both at the household and at the individual level, takes into consideration the complex survey design and the re-visit process. The weighted response rate at the household level was 91.3%, and the weighted response rate at the individual level was 76.6%. The main reason for non-participation at household was “no one at home” (12.8% ofeligible households). Direct refusals were infrequent (5.2%). Main reason for nonparticipation at individual level was “absent in the moment” (7.8% of listed individuals). Direct refusals were infrequent (6.2% of listed individuals). The instrument is a computer assisted version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI certified version 15;
La investigación base de la que...